DOCSLIB.ORG

I V the Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I V the Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown The Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Kyle Beardsley, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Joseph Grieco ___________________________ Daniel Bolger Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 i v ABSTRACT The Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Kyle Beardsley, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Joseph Grieco ___________________________ Daniel Bolger An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 i v Copyright by J. Wellington Brown 2020 Abstract Foreign military bases are anomalies in a world of sovereign states. Why do major powers station their finite military forces to protect other countries and how does the distribution of these bases relate to a country’s grand strategy? Why do host-nations give up their sovereignty and allow foreign forces, capable of existential violence, to deploy within their borders? This dissertation takes a mixed method approach to each of these questions. For the first, I combine descriptive case studies relating the basing postures of five major powers and to their respective grand strategies with a quantitative analysis of the correlates of the US military basing network. To answer the second, I test the role of host-nation security conditions on US military access and then conduct an in-depth process tracing of US-Philippine basing relations. I find that foreign military bases are essential for super-power status and are an arena for great power competition. I conclude that the US foreign basing posture is strongly aligned with American trade relationships and against US enemies. For host-nation motivations, I conclude that security threats to the host-nation matter, but not uniformly. External threats have the greatest influence in increasing foreign military access, but low-intensity revolutionary threats actually tend to decrease a host-nation’s willingness to accommodate foreign forces. iv Dedication This work is dedicated to the Lord God who brought the peace that passes understanding in my dark night of the soul. v Disclaimer The opinions and assertions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force or the Department of Defense. vi Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................. iv Disclaimer .............................................................................................................. vi Contents ................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables .......................................................................................................... x List of Figures ........................................................................................................ xi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... xii 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Why Build Foreign Bases? ............................................................................ 7 1.2 Why Allow Foreign Bases? ......................................................................... 12 1.3 Defining Military Bases ............................................................................... 25 1.4 Types of Foreign Bases ............................................................................... 32 1.4.1 Basing Level Typology ......................................................................... 34 1.4.1 Interest Balance Typology .................................................................... 39 1.4.2 Are Foreign Bases Consensual? ............................................................ 43 2. Major Powers and Foreign Military Bases ....................................................... 47 2.1 Russia .......................................................................................................... 48 2.2 United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 56 2.3 France .......................................................................................................... 64 2.4 China ............................................................................................................ 72 2.5 The United States ......................................................................................... 80 2.5.1 US Bases in Europe ............................................................................... 85 2.5.2 US Bases in Asia ................................................................................... 87 vii 2.5.3 US Bases in the Middle East ................................................................. 91 2.5.4 US Bases in Africa ................................................................................ 94 2.5.5 US Bases in Latin America ................................................................... 99 2.6 Lessons about Sending-State Motivation .................................................. 101 3. American Grand Strategy and the Correlates of US Military Basing ............. 109 3.1 Measuring US Foreign Basing .................................................................. 111 3.2 Theoretical Correlates of US Military Basing ........................................... 112 3.2.1 Security ................................................................................................ 112 3.2.2 Geography ........................................................................................... 116 3.2.3 Ideology ............................................................................................... 117 3.2.4 Economics ........................................................................................... 119 3.3 Data & Models ........................................................................................... 122 3.3.1 US Foreign Basing and Eras of American Grand Strategy ................. 129 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 133 4. Host-Nation Motivations: Security Conditions and Foreign Military Access 136 4.2 Security Conditions and Foreign Military Access ..................................... 136 4.3 Empirical Test ............................................................................................ 143 4.3.1 Dependent Variable ............................................................................. 143 4.3.2 Independent Variables ......................................................................... 147 4.3.3 Control Variables ................................................................................ 151 Conflict Propensity .......................................................................................... 151 4.3.4 Models ................................................................................................. 154 4.3.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 164 viii 5. The Philippines 1965-2013: A Within-Case Comparison .............................. 166 5.1 Methodology .............................................................................................. 168 5.2.1 Why the Philippines? .......................................................................... 171 5.2 Prelude: The History of US Military Bases in the Philippines .................. 175 5.3 The 1947 Military Basing Agreement: Dependent Independence ............ 180 5.4 The 1979 MBA: Revolutionary Threat & Reduced US Access ................ 183 5.5 The 1983 Extension: Increasing Intensity & Continued US Access ......... 193 5.6 The 1988 "Open Options" Policy and the Dual Revolutionary Threat ..... 196 5.7 The 1991 Post-Cold War Peace and the End of US Military Bases .......... 201 5.7.1 Alternative Explanations and Other Factors ....................................... 210 5.8 The 1998 VFA: The Return Great Power Conflict...and GI Joe ............... 215 5.9 Epilogue ..................................................................................................... 222 5.10 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 225 6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 228 6.1 Academic Contribution .............................................................................. 230 6.2 Limitations & Extensions .......................................................................... 232 6.3 Policy Implications and Recommendations .............................................. 236 Appendix A: Selected Interviews ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wooster – a Charter City Charter Ballot Performance Revisions Dashboard
    CITY NEWSLETTER Fall 2020 What’s Inside WOOSTER – A CHARTER CITY CHARTER BALLOT PERFORMANCE REVISIONS DASHBOARD Leaf Pick Up | Trick or Treat | DORA | Recycling Info | Hazardous Waste Collection Mayor Breneman’s Message As we are all aware, COVID’s appearance in our community started quite a few months ago. Even though the virus is still present in our city and county, and we City Newsletter | Fall 2020 have experienced sickness and tragically loss, I want to focus on the many good things we have going for us. We are truly blessed to live, work, and have family and friends Inside This Edition in this beautiful city and county we call home. Message from the Mayor 1 Please take time to step away from the news media, Wooster – A Charter City 2 election turmoil, and daily briefings to reflect on what Ballot Summaries 3 makes Wooster and our agrarian heritage so special in Performance Dashboard 9 life today. We are far better off living through this virus than what was originally predicted. Our city is operating well in all of our critical Trick or Treat 13 service lines (Hospital, Police, Fire/EMS, Water, Wastewater, Maintenance and Getting Noticed 14 Utilities), and we have a solid economy fueling our lives and needs. Santa’s Mailbox 14 Take a moment to enjoy all the good that surrounds us; fall colors, starry nights, Recycling 15 cool weather, friends and family, holidays, and our health. There are many things Hazardous Waste 15 that try to pull us down; make sure you balance those with the abundance of good Infrastructure Updates 16 that surrounds every day! Normal life is coming.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE POWERS 2 GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2 CITY MANAGER ALTERNATIVE 3 ELECTIONS 9 LEGISLATION 11 FINANCE 13 SCHEDULE 18 INDEX 22 CITY OF ROCKFORD CHARTER We, the people of the City of Rockford, pursuant to the authority granted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, in order to secure the benefits of efficient self-government and otherwise promote our common welfare, do hereby ordain and establish this Charter. CORPORATE POWERS Section 1. The municipal corporation now existing and known as the Village of Rockford, shall continue to be a body politic and corporate under the name City of Rockford, and include all territory described as follows: The whole of section thirty-six (36) in township nine (9) north of range eleven (11) west, and the fractional north half of the north half of section one (1) in township eight (8) north of range eleven (11) west, as originally incorporated as the Village of Rockford by Act No. 537 of the Local Acts of 1887, in Kent County, Michigan. Section 2. The City shall have power to exercise any and all of the powers which cities are, or may hereafter be, permitted to exercise or to provide in their charters under the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, as fully and completely as though the powers were specifically enumerated herein, and to do any act to advance the interests of the City, the good government and prosperity of the municipality and its inhabitants, except for such limitations and restrictions as are provided in this Charter, and no enumeration of particular powers of the City in this Charter shall be held to be exclusive.
    [Show full text]
  • America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy
    Survival Global Politics and Strategy ISSN: 0039-6338 (Print) 1468-2699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann To cite this article: Georg Löfflmann (2019) America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy, Survival, 61:6, 115-138, DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 Published online: 19 Nov 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 515 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the success of Brexit in the European Union referendum campaign in the United Kingdom are the most prominent examples of the populist disruption of the status quo in international politics. This has led to heightened interest in the phenomenon of populism, both among global media and in academia.1 In the past, most analysts viewed populism as a domestic phenomenon rel- evant to voter mobilisation, with a particular focus on its impact on liberal democratic systems, comparisons among populist movements and leaders, and its development in Europe and Latin America.2 Populism’s impact on foreign policy and national security has garnered relatively little attention, and there has been little crossover between
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Fort Trump Couldn't Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones
    09/10/2018 The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones Unknown date Salvatore Babones The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger Poland’s President Andrzej Duda met with President Donald Trump at the White House Tuesday to talk defense. Poland’s defense. But then, Poland’s defense is Europe’s defense, and European defense has been a core U.S. foreign-policy mission for more than a century. Poland is crucial to European defense because it is the keystone of a NATO arch that runs from Norway in the Arctic to Turkey in the Caucasus. NATO’s northern ank is secure. NATO’s southern ank is in disarray as Turkey’s commitment to NATO comes under doubt. But it is in the center that any future conict will be won or lost. Germany used to be the bulwark of NATO’s central front, but today Germany’s defense spending is among the lowest in Europe and its operational readiness is abysmal. Just as important, the German public does not support NATO’s mission or America’s role in it. By a 42 percent to 37 percent margin, Germans want U.S. troops out of their country. Even more alarming is the fact that only 40 percent of the German public supports the use of German troops to defend another European country from a Russian invasion. The corresponding gure for both the United States and Poland is 62 percent. That’s right: Americans are more willing to send troops to defend a European ally than Germans are.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Cities
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 3 Symposium: Rights Protection in Article 6 International Criminal Law and Beyond March 2019 Charter Cities Lan Cao Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Repository Citation Lan Cao, Charter Cities, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 717 (2019), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ wmborj/vol27/iss3/6 Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj CHARTER CITIES Lan Cao* INTRODUCTION Globalization has produced a mongrelized, hybrid, and heterogeneous reality that transcends national territory. For example, in today’s globalized world, corporate products are frequently globally sourced and produced. “A Pontiac Le Mans, osten- sibly a General Motors product of American nationality, is in fact a globally com- posite product involving South Korean assembly; Japanese engines, transaxles and electronics; German design and style engineering; Taiwanese, Singaporean, and Japanese small components; British advertising and marketing; and Irish and Bar- badian data processing.”1 Is this an American product or not? “Products appear to be made everywhere and also nowhere in particular, as shown on the following com- puter circuit label: ‘Made in one or more of the following countries: Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Mauritius, Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Philip- pines. The exact country of origin is unknown.’”2 Even national governance has become more hybridized under the influence of the forces of globalization.3 The domestic autonomy of states must now contend * Professor Cao is the Betty Hutton Williams Professor of International Economic Law at the Fowler School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Raport
    SPECIAL REPORT 02/11/2019 U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Warsaw Institute U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE U.S. Permanent Military Base in Poland: Favorable Solution For the NATO Alliance Publisher: Warsaw Institute Wilcza St. 9 00-538 Warsaw Poland www.warsawinstitute.org [email protected] Authors: Grzegorz Kuczyński - Director of Eurasia Program, Warsaw Institute Krzysztof Kamiński – President, Warsaw Institute Glen E. Howard - President, Jamestown Foundation Laurynas Kasčiūnas - Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania Iulian Chifu – President, Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Center Editor: Agnieszka Nitek - Warsaw Institute Translations & proofreading: Aleksandra Iskra - Warsaw Institute ISBN 978-83-947602-2-9 © Warsaw Institute 2019 The opinions given and the positions held in this publication solely reflects the views of authors. 2 Special Report www.warsawinstitute.org U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Dear Readers, On September 18th, 2018, during a joint press conference of the President of the United States and President of the Republic of Poland, the proposal to increase the involvement of U.S. Army in Central and Eastern Europe was announced. President Donald J. Trump said the U.S. is considering to deploy more U.S. troops and military equipment to Poland. His Polish counterpart, President Andrzej Duda, suggested building a permanent U.S. base in Poland. Poland has openly proposed a permanent U.S. presence since President George W. Bush was in office. All significant political forces in Poland have been supporting this idea for years.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges A
    5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8-14 Avenue de la Paix 12-11 Geneva 10, Switzerland Via Email: [email protected] RE: Complaint Against the United States of America: Interference with Judicial Proceedings at the International Criminal Court “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” - U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton1 “…subsequent changes within the relevant political landscape both in Afghanistan and in key States (both parties and non-parties to the Statute), coupled with the complexity and volatility of the political climate still surrounding the Afghan scenario, make it extremely difficult to gauge the prospects of securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities for the future.” - ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, 12 April 2019 Decision2 Dear Special Rapporteur García-Sayán, This complaint and request for a comprehensive investigation is prompted by the well- founded belief that there has been, and likely continues to be, interference with the independence of judicial proceedings at the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) by senior officials of the United States, up to and including President Donald Trump. Public statements by U.S. officials make clear that the target of this interference extends not only to personnel of the ICC, including members of the judiciary, but also to Member States of the ICC as well as inter-governmental organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”), and threatens to interfere with the work of lawyers representing victims or otherwise engaging with the ICC.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter City Toronto Proposal Starting the Conversation Around Empowering Toronto and Other Canadian Cities Fall 2019
    Charter City Toronto Proposal Starting the Conversation Around Empowering Toronto and Other Canadian Cities Fall 2019 Contents Proposal Overview 3 The Case for a City Charter 6 The Charter Proposal 10 A. Governance 11 B. Constitutional Protection 12 C. Powers and Authority 14 Exclusive City Jurisdictions Land Use Planning 15 Streets 15 Housing 16 Local Transit 16 Health 17 Education 17 Shared Jurisdictions Human Services 18 Immigration and Settlement 19 Police and Security 19 D. Resources: Revenue and Finances 20 E. Access, Equity, and Inclusion 22 The Bigger Picture 23 Contact Us: Proposal Developed by: Email Henrich Bechmann Alan Kasperski [email protected] David Del Grande Sean Manners Website Doug Earl Sean Meagher CharterCityToronto.ca Merrilee Evans Ashley Quan Facebook Russ Ford Pedram Rahbari Tim Grant Ceta Rankhalawansingh Charter City Toronto Rob Jamieson John Sewell Twitter John Jeffrey Adam Smith @ CharterCity_TO Beth Levy North York | Photo Credit: benny_lin, Flickr Proposal Overview There’s been a lot of talk lately about empowering the city of Toronto and other big cities. Adopting a City Charter is often mentioned as a way to give the city the power and authority it needs to govern its own affairs. But what would a City Charter look like? What would be in it? What would it do for cities? This proposal is an attempt to begin that conversation. Two-Part Process Charter City Toronto proposes a two-part process toward greater power and autonomy for the city of Toronto. We believe this can serve as a template for other cities in Ontario and Canada who wish to achieve greater control over their own affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Growing Importance of Municipal Empowerment in the Canadian Federation and the Need for a “Big Cities Collective”
    The Growing Importance of Municipal Empowerment in the Canadian Federation and the Need for a “Big Cities Collective” Lauren Bech-Hansen – Dalhousie University The Canadian federal-provincial system of government is recognized as one of the most unique in the world. While the founding fathers originally envisaged a relatively centralized system of government, reflecting their desire for a powerful national authority, political realities soon deemed that a more decentralized form of government would prevail. Influenced by both domestic and international factors, the Canadian federal system evolved throughout the 20th century. Provincial governments increasingly asserted their rights to attain the jurisdictional powers necessary to achieve their goals, and demanded to be placed on a near-equal footing with the federal government.1 The process by which this unfolded was long, grueling and conflict-ridden, but was essential if Canada were to function in the face of intense regionalism. 2 The process reached in culmination in the Constitution Act of 1982, which enshrined the two-tier federal- provincial system. Seemingly forgotten as federal-provincial jurisdiction has evolved in Canada is the third level of government: municipalities. And despite their enduring existence in the Canadian political economy, municipal governments have historically been excluded from constitutional recognition, and have “never enjoyed the independence that one often connects to a level of government.”3 Indeed, while the federal and provincial governments relish in autonomous power, local governments have been subordinately constitutionalized as “creatures of the province”, and are fiercely limited under provincial authority. 4 Municipal subordination has become increasingly problematic in an era of globalization that has introduced new consumer demands that heavily burden local governments.
    [Show full text]
  • European Army Or Fort Trump? the Case of Polish Participation in Headquarters Eurocorps in the Issue of Multinational Military Echelons in the 21St Century
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2019-06 EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Bohnsack, Heiko Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/62796 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Heiko Bohnsack June 2019 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Uwe Hartmann Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved OMB REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) June 2019 Master's thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Rule Charter Era
    the charter: a history The Committee of Seventy THE CHARTER: A HISTORY CITY GOVERNANCE PROJECT THE COMMITTEE OF SEVENTY Copyright October, 1980 The Committee of Seventy, Philadelphia. PA This publication is solely the product of the Committee of Seventy. The research from which this document was prepared was conducted by the Committee of Seventy through its "Practicum" Program. Acknowledgment is gratefully made to The Pew Memorial Trust and The Samuel S. Fels Fund for their generous support of that program. Further acknowledgment is made to the Pennsylvania Economy League for its cooperation and assistance. Table of Contents PREFACE..................................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER ONE THE PRE-HOME RULE CHARTER ERA I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 II. LIFE UNDER A POLITICAL MACHINE................................................................1 III. EARLY REFORM EFFORTS: RUDOLPH BLANKENBURG……………………... .3 IV. THE 1919 CHARTER....................................................................................................3 V. THE FIRST STEP TOWARD HOME RULE................................................................3 VI. PORTRAIT OF A BOSS: WILLIAM S. VARE............................................................4 VII. THE DEPRESSION. , .....................................................................................................4 VIII. A CHARTER
    [Show full text]
  • A Minefield of Opportunity
    REPORT — SPRING 2020 A minefield of opportunity Transatlantic defence in the Trump era The authors in this discussion paper contribute in their personal capacities, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of the organisations they represent, nor of Friends of Europe and its board of trustees, members or partners. Reproduction on whole or in part is permitted, provided that full credit is given to Friends of Europe, and that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in part, is not sold unless incorporated in other works. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Co-funded by the Europe for Citizens Programme of the European Union Publisher: Geert Cami Director: Nathalie Furrer, Dharmendra Kanani Programme Manager: Raphaël Danglade Programme Assistant: Clara Casert Editor: Robert Arenella, Arnaud Bodet, Eleanor Doorley, Angela Pauly Design: Elza Lőw, Lucien Leyh © Friends of Europe - July 2019 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visits the United States, April 2017 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visits the United States, April 2017 This report is part of Friends of Europe’s Peace, Security and Defence programme. Written by Paul Taylor, it brings together the views of scholars, policymakers and senior defence and security stakeholders. Unless otherwise indicated, this report reflects the writer’s understanding of the views expressed by the interviewees and participants of survey. The author and the participants contributed in their personal capacities, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions they represent, or of Friends of Europe and its board of trustees, members or partners.
    [Show full text]